Workplace Relationships Broken Down? Always Avoid a Knee-Jerk Response

Where irresolvable differences of opinion render an employment relationship entirely unworkable, dismissal may be justified. However, as one case showed, a knee-jerk response is never wise and a failure to allow time for reflection and the observance of proper procedures is likely to have…

Dec 24, 2021

The case concerned the chief operating officer and founder of a technology company whose relationship with his co-founders had become so strained that a psychologist specialising in dispute resolution had at one point been engaged in an attempt to break the impasse. They objected to elements of his management style and had very different visions as to how the company should progress.

Matters reached a head when he was summarily dismissed during a board meeting. He was given no prior notice of the co-founders’ intention to dismiss him, let alone their grounds for doing so. He was not advised of his right to be accompanied at the meeting and was not offered any right of appeal. After he launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, the company conceded that unauthorised deductions had been made from his wages and that his dismissal was unfair.

In assessing the amount of compensation due to him, the ET noted that he may not have been a model employee in all respects. However, there were likely to have been errors and miscommunications on both sides and the breakdown in working relationships was an unhappy fact for which more than one individual could fairly be held responsible.

The ET found that the bond between the man and the co-founders had irretrievably broken and there was no real prospect of it being repaired. Given the loss of trust and confidence between them, his dismissal was capable of being fair. That, however, would have required a formal procedure and a pause for reflection and perhaps dialogue. Such a procedure would have taken up to six months.

The man was awarded a sum equivalent to six months’ loss of earnings, benefits and statutory rights. The ET uplifted the award by 25 per cent to take account of the company’s flagrant breach of the principles of sound employment relations practice enshrined in the Acas code. Together with a payment in respect of unlawful deductions from his wages, his overall award came to £117,145.

Whistleblowing and the Importance of Proving Motive – Guideline Ruling

Establishing that an employee has made a protected disclosure is the first step on the path to success in any whistleblowing claim. However, as a case concerning a dismissed care homes manager showed, it is often much harder to prove that detrimental treatment is motivated by such a disclosure. The woman had been in post for only about six months when she was dismissed at the end of her probationary period. Her employer asserted that she was dismissed on grounds of capability or performance.…

Coarse Language in the Workplace – ET Upholds Harassment Claim

Even if the kind of coarse language used in traditionally male-dominated workplaces was once acceptable, it certainly is not today. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding substantial damages to an office administrator who was harassed by her foul-mouthed line manager. The woman worked at a lambskin processing plant, next to an abattoir. She resigned after less than a year in the job, citing what she viewed as her manager’s unacceptable, unpleasant and harassing behaviour. She…

Employment Judge Embarked on ‘Frolic of his Own’ – EAT Ruling

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment judge went on a frolic of his own. The case concerned a senior employee of a global company who was seconded on a short-term basis to run its operations in Canada. After his commission payments – which in…